MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3131209981 · doi:10.1287/opre.2020.2079

Duopoly Competition with Network Effects in Discrete Choice Models

2021· article· en· W3131209981 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOperations Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDigital Platforms and Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDuopolyCompetitor analysisMarket powerCompetition (biology)Industrial organizationMarket shareMicroeconomicsBusinessMarket structureRelevant marketEconomicsUnit (ring theory)MarketingCournot competitionMonopoly

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been realized for a long time that network effects play an important role in how market participants compete with each other. Arguably, companies like Facebook and Google are able to gain immense market power by leveraging the network effects of their consumers, despite potential competitors. This paper investigates how the dynamics play out in duopoly competition. We find that when the network effects per unit of consumption are weak, the competitors can co-exist and gain even market shares. As network effects become stronger, it is unstable, and even impossible, for the firms to coexist, and one firm emerges victorious, taking the majority of the market. The study provides a theoretical analysis for commonly observed market phenomena. It may also have implications for antitrust legislation: Special policies need to be created to maintain a competitive market structure for products and services with strong network effects.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.648
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it